Murray. If Nadal were still in the mix, I doubt he'd have a slam right now.

Either Nadal would beat him in the US open semi-final, or Murray would beat Nadal, but kill himself in the process, leaving him easy meat for Djokovic in the final. Or he'd face Nadal in the final and choke.

Murray. If Nadal were still in the mix, I doubt he'd have a slam right now.

Either Nadal would beat him in the US open semi-final, or Murray would beat Nadal, but kill himself in the process, leaving him easy meat for Djokovic in the final. Or he'd face Nadal in the final and choke.

Click to expand...

or it could have been like shanghai or Tokyo where Murray barely broke sweat in beating Nadal, therefore would have been an easier opponent than Berdych..

or it could have been like shanghai or Tokyo where Murray barely broke sweat in beating Nadal, therefore would have been an easier opponent than Berdych..

Click to expand...

Get real. Tokyo and Shanghai are not the latter stages of a slam. Nadal in the semis of a slam is not going to get crushed by Murray. The only way Murray gets an easy victory is if Nadal is injured. Otherwise, it's a minimum of 4 sets, probably 5.

Get real. Tokyo and Shanghai are not the latter stages of a slam. Nadal in the semis of a slam is not going to get crushed by Murray. The only way Murray gets an easy victory is if Nadal is injured. Otherwise, it's a minimum of 4 sets, probably 5.

Click to expand...

Need I mention US 2008 and AO 2010? (and no, I don't buy that Nadal's injury was bad enough to cause him to lose - he was flat out beaten and chose to withdrew. It worked, he kept Murray as a lapdog for a little longer)

Need I mention US 2008 and AO 2010? (and no, I don't buy that Nadal's injury was bad enough to cause him to lose - he was flat out beaten and chose to withdrew. It worked, he kept Murray as a lapdog for a little longer)

Click to expand...

US Open 2008 was a tough 4 setter (and I said it'd be a minimum of 4 sets), and, and you can be as skeptical as you like about Nadal's injury in the AO 2010, but the fact is, it goes down as a loss due to retirement because of injury. Nadal is a champion. He generally takes his beatings like a man. If he can't continue, then he's injured.

So you've got no point. A fully fit Nadal would either beat Muzza in the US Open semi, or take him to 4 or 5 tough sets in a loss.

Ferrer obviously has had the advantage of being seeded #4, giving him a great chance of getting to the semis, and boosting his ranking points.

In theory, Djokovic and Federer should have equal advantage, as one of them has been getting a theoretically clear run to the finals, so fresher for the final, plus more points assured - except only really Djokovic has taken full advantage of that.

All players who may have faced Nadal will probably have faced an easier competitor instead, and Murray was more likely to meet Nadal than most players, but he still had to (theoretically) go through Federer and Djokovic to win a title, which isn't much different to what he had to do when Nadal was around.

Murray. If Nadal were still in the mix, I doubt he'd have a slam right now.

Either Nadal would beat him in the US open semi-final, or Murray would beat Nadal, but kill himself in the process, leaving him easy meat for Djokovic in the final. Or he'd face Nadal in the final and choke.

Murray. If Nadal were still in the mix, I doubt he'd have a slam right now.

Either Nadal would beat him in the US open semi-final, or Murray would beat Nadal, but kill himself in the process, leaving him easy meat for Djokovic in the final. Or he'd face Nadal in the final and choke.

Click to expand...

Yep - that's definitely what would happen. Or maybe Nadal would lose to Rosol?

I guess we'll never know with any certainty what would have happened.

The only facts we have to go on are that Murray hasn't choked in the last 4 big finals he's played in and that Nadal and Murray are 2:2 in hardcourt slams.

I'd agree, generally. He now gets his own quarter of the draw and can avoid playing Fed, Murray, or Djoker until the SFs - basically he has a much, much better chance at making Slam SFs, which he promptly took advantage of at the USO and AO (with thanks to Almagro).

I'd agree, generally. He now gets his own quarter of the draw and can avoid playing Fed, Murray, or Djoker until the SFs - basically he has a much, much better chance at making Slam SFs, which he promptly took advantage of at the AO (with thanks to Almagro).

Click to expand...

And the USO.

Nothing has really changed much for Murray - he went through Nole and Roger to win the OG and would have had to do the same at the USO had Roger made semis. Had he won the AO, he would also have gone through Roger and Nole.

I'm struggling to see why Rafa's absence has had much bearing on Murray's OG and USO wins.

I'd agree, generally. He now gets his own quarter of the draw and can avoid playing Fed, Murray, or Djoker until the SFs - basically he has a much, much better chance at making Slam SFs, which he promptly took advantage of at the AO (with thanks to Almagro).

Click to expand...

Hope Ferrer had some fun while it lasted because Nadal should be able to get the number four ranking back soon if he does well in the S. American clay court swing I believe.

Nothing has really changed much for Murray - he went through Nole and Roger to win the OG and would have had to do the same at the USO had Roger made semis. Had he won the AO, he would also have gone through Roger and Nole.

I'm struggling to see why Rafa's absence has had much bearing on Murray's OG and USO wins.

Click to expand...

Murray's 5-13 vs Rafa, and especially last couple of years has been unable to get past Rafa in the slams - 2011 USO, Wimby and RG. Maybe it's a bad matchup for him. It could have played out differently, but based on the stats, you would have to think that Murray's certainly one of the beneficiaries.

Murray's 5-13 vs Rafa, and especially last couple of years has been unable to get past Rafa in the slams - 2011 USO, Wimby and RG. Maybe it's a bad matchup for him. It could have played out differently, but based on the stats, you would have to think that Murray's certainly one of the beneficiaries.

Click to expand...

The little fact you all seem to ignore is that if Murray had faced Rafa it would have been in the final at the earliest in ALL of those events. That's assuming he would have beaten Djokovic. The 3rd and 4th seeds are always drawn in different halves.

The little fact you all seem to ignore is that if Murray had faced Rafa it would have been in the final at the earliest in ALL of those events. That's assuming he would have beaten Djokovic. The 3rd and 4th seeds are always drawn in different halves.

Click to expand...

Then it's even more likely that Murray wouldn't have a slam. Murray plays free-er in slam semis than in slam finals, when the occassion often gets to him (he's admited as much). That's why he's got such an awful record in slam finals. He's have a better chance of beating Nadal in a semi than a final, imho. If he faced Nadal in a final, Nadal's superior composure in finals and Murrary's tendency to choke in finals would probably spell doom for Murray. Djokovic would soften up Murray in the semi, and Nadal would likely kill him off.

Then it's even more likely that Murray wouldn't have a slam. Murray plays free-er in slam semis than in slam finals, when the occassion often gets to him (he's admited as much). That's why he's got such an awful record in slam finals. He's have a better chance of beating Nadal in a semi than a final, imho. If he faced Nadal in a final, Nadal's superior composure in finals and Murrary's tendency to choke in finals would probably spell doom for Murray. Djokovic would soften up Murray in the semi, and Nadal would likely kill him off.

Click to expand...

So you are assuming that Nadal would have won against Djokovic? Isn't Djokovic the lucky guy then, because he got to finals when he would have otherwise lost to Rafa in the semis???

Besides what is all this bs anyway? Is Djokovic's Aussie Open win any less legitimate because Murray was having physical problems during that final? I thought not. Being fit is part of the job, if you aren't healthy and can't compete it's your problem. The world goes on. Rafa was the only Big 3 guy Murray had ever beaten in a slam prior to his USO triumph, so all these claims are ridiculous tbf. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... but wasn't fit enough.

Rodger Federer. Nadal brushed RF aside in the 2012 AO semi finals, and would have done the same this year if in the same draw.

Click to expand...

Soooooo how did he benefit? He still lost in the SF. That makes no sense. And that is strange logic. Just because something happens one year doesn't mean it will happen the next. For instance: How many times has Nadal defended a tournament title that wasn't on clay? I'll give you three guesses. Beeeep. Wrong. NEVER!!!:twisted:

Soooooo how did he benefit? He still lost in the SF. That makes no sense. And that is strange logic. Just because something happens one year doesn't mean it will happen the next. For instance: How many times has Nadal defended a tournament title that wasn't on clay? I'll give you three guesses. Beeeep. Wrong. NEVER!!!:twisted:

Click to expand...

So why is Murray on the list? Murray is one the form of his life, there no saying he could or could not beat Nadal, he was already reaching finals even with Nadal not being injured.

Imagine how much Sampras benefitted from playing in such a weak era. His only competition was headcase Agassi, LOL! Imagine if Agassi actually had his act together, Sampras would be sitting on about 9 slams.

Imagine how much Sampras benefitted from playing in such a weak era. His only competition was headcase Agassi, LOL! Imagine if Agassi actually had his act together, Sampras would be sitting on about 9 slams.

Click to expand...

Pete didn't lose to Agassi on ALL SURFACES like Roger has lost to Nadal.

Agassi couldn't beat Pete at 2 of the 4 slams. Nadal is pretty much the heavy favorite over Federer on every surface aside from indoors

LOL funny thing is Djokovic is on his way to surpass Agassi, which will really show the lack of real rivals for Sampras in the 90s.

Click to expand...

Djoker will nab a lot of slams obviously because Fed and Nadal are on their way out the door and passed their primes. Agassi had to deal with Sampras as a contemporary his ENTIRE career. Nole is more fortunate in that regard

The field is more open now and opportunities for guys like Nole and Murray are more plentiful because Nadal-Fed are semi retired at this point

Djoker will nab a lot of slams obviously because Fed and Nadal are on their way out the door and passed their primes. Agassi had to deal with Sampras as a contemporary his ENTIRE career. Nole is more fortunate in that regard

The field is more open now and opportunities for guys like Nole and Murray are more plentiful because Nadal-Fed are semi retired at this point

Click to expand...

Agassi won 3 of his 8 slams after 2000 when Sampras had essentially become as YOU put it a 'non-entity'. Thus he really should only be sitting on about 5 slams. Whereas Djokovic has now won 6 when Federer and Nadal have both been playing at a pretty good level, as well as Murray now. One could conclude that Djoker > Agassi.

^
That is the type of logic you use in your arguments. Just accept that Federer has surpassed Sampras and move on.

Djoker will nab a lot of slams obviously because Fed and Nadal are on their way out the door and passed their primes. Agassi had to deal with Sampras as a contemporary his ENTIRE career. Nole is more fortunate in that regard

The field is more open now and opportunities for guys like Nole and Murray are more plentiful because Nadal-Fed are semi retired at this point

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. John Isner is still a tricky opponent for Djokovic, as evidenced by Isner's epic win over Novak in IW. Even Novak's usual clutch play on match points could not save him from the 140 mph serves John was hitting.I think Isner will be in the picture over the next few years.

Get real. Tokyo and Shanghai are not the latter stages of a slam. Nadal in the semis of a slam is not going to get crushed by Murray. The only way Murray gets an easy victory is if Nadal is injured. Otherwise, it's a minimum of 4 sets, probably 5.